Logic Should Prevail

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
It’s amazing how quickly I forget how pathologically insecure Zeb is… [/quote]

That’s funny swole. It’s seems that you have an opinion on just about everything and everyone. But just once, I mean only one time, I would love to say you were actually correct. As yet nothing. You’re the epitome of the blind liberal who feels he’s captured the truth. Your endless droning is only made tolerable knowing that with each post you’re desperately trying to make up for that two year Community College degree. Ah, no one’s perfect but at least try to conceal it a little better.

Also, if you have nothing of substance to contribute (and you never do) I’d appreciate it if you would get off my thread.

In general you would do well to keep in mind what I cautioned you about several months ago. Can your high powered brain reach that far back?

:slight_smile:

22

ZEB and MaximusB, you have both missed the point completely.

By disagreeing with you, you immediately began insulting me, just like you did with Florelius, and just about anyone else that disagreed with you.

The irony being you (without hesitation) immediately resorted to the methods you decried in the OP.

23

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
ZEB and MaximusB, you have both missed the point completely.

By disagreeing with you, you immediately began insulting me, just like you did with Florelius, and just about anyone else that disagreed with you.

The irony being you (without hesitation) immediately resorted to the methods you decried in the OP.
[/quote]

I did not insult you. In fact, I said you were an intelligent person. Your thoughts on the topic in my opinion were illogical and I said so.

Here is my previous post:

[quote]Thank you for your illogical answer. On this thread at least you are the epitome of what seems to be wrong with my country. Intelligent people like you who have swallowed a certain political philosophy hook line and sinker. Even to the point where the illogical seems logical.

You are in essence saying it is logical to take money from hard working people and give it to others so that they do not have to work and are able to stay home contributing nothing to the economy.

And in addition you think it makes perfect sense to disarm the citizenry so that they are powerless in the face of adversaries.

And finally it is perfectly logical to you to grow our government beyond our means to pay for it.

Thank you for serving as the perfect example of the illogic that serves today as our government. [/quote]

24

MaximusB insulted me, you were simply condescending.

You know nothing of my political beliefs or affiliations, they may surprise you.

The point is that there is never a RIGHT answer when it comes to policy decisions.

25

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
MaximusB insulted me, you were simply condescending.

You know nothing of my political beliefs or affiliations, they may surprise you.

The point is that there is never a RIGHT answer when it comes to policy decisions.

[/quote]

But there are instruments that are completely wrong to achieve a certain goal.

If you want to have slums in your cities and regular fires rent controls are awesome.

If you want to make sure living space is somewhat affordable, they are one of the most stupid things you could do.

So, while you cannot really judge goals as being right or wrong, you certainly can say that a specific policy will not achieve its alleged purpose.

26

[quote]orion wrote:
you certainly can say that a specific policy will not achieve its alleged purpose.
[/quote]

Exactly, an opposing opinion that attacks an idea, shouldn’t offend the proponent of that idea, but should be critically thought about and addressed.

As I stated earlier, I feel this problem is exacerbated in countries with 2 prominent parties, that way the people can only democratically choose between 2 options (IE: Stimulus vs. Tax Cuts).

27

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
MaximusB insulted me, you were simply condescending.

You know nothing of my political beliefs or affiliations, they may surprise you.

The point is that there is never a RIGHT answer when it comes to policy decisions.

[/quote]

But there are instruments that are completely wrong to achieve a certain goal.

If you want to have slums in your cities and regular fires rent controls are awesome.

If you want to make sure living space is somewhat affordable, they are one of the most stupid things you could do.

So, while you cannot really judge goals as being right or wrong, you certainly can say that a specific policy will not achieve its alleged purpose.
[/quote]

You’ve just done a magnificent job of putting politics aside and thinking about what works best. That IS the point of this thread.

28

I think what PTD was pointing out is that when you start an argument/debate on the grounds that you are correct, then it is immediately biased, b/c you’ve taken the stance that what you say is right and anyone who disagrees is wrong.
I don’t think he was speaking directly about what you said, but how you framed your initial statement.

29

[quote]orion wrote:

But there are instruments that are completely wrong to achieve a certain goal.

…

So, while you cannot really judge goals as being right or wrong, you certainly can say that a specific policy will not achieve its alleged purpose.
[/quote]

I think we agree.

And to continue, I think bills & opinions are often given and reported without any attempt of trying to find out the goals of the legislation or individual.

30

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
Just to expand on my thoughts: this thread is the CORE of the “vitriol” issue.

You’ve set forth a set of OPINIONS stated as questions (look at some of your adjective choices) and said that they (your opinions) are LOGICAL, therefore to disagree, you must be ILLOGICAL.

That being the core of the “vitriol” problem.

In policy decisions there never is a “right” answer, and I feel the problem of “othering” (the technical rhetorical debate term for what your doing) is exacerbated in countries with 2-party systems, the most prominent being, of course, America.
[/quote]

It’s a damn shame that somewhere in your menial brain stem, you associate disagreement with vitriol.

You see this with the Left alot, how dare you disagree with me, you are a racist, a xenophobe, and vitriolic. People are entitled to their opinions, we do not need extreme labels such as vitriol for people who simply disagree.

Even our president has talked about disagreeing without being disagreeable, yet you cannot grasp this very concept.

Why is there this demand for us to all get along? I like gridlock, it means my taxes don’t go up. [/quote]

Nowhere in Dave’s post did he demand that we all agree. He simply pointed out that what Zeb presented as irrefutably logical facts are actually largely opinion.

Nor did he associate disagreeing with him with vitriol. He merely stated the obvious - that if you present your opinions as logical fact, then you are setting the precedent that anyone who disagrees with you is illogical. This is not a useful or logical tool of debate, and it is called “othering.”

He was, in fact, suggesting that Zeb’s arguments were couched in exactly the type of “disagreeable” rhetorical tools that he was seeking to avoid and that you decry.
[/quote]

Who doesn’t present their opinion as logical fact ?

Both sides do this, and it will never stop, because it is within our own nature to do so. Alpha politics, both parties will continue to do it. The argument of “my idea is better” will never change.

31

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I think what PTD was pointing out is that when you start an argument/debate on the grounds that you are correct, then it is immediately biased, b/c you’ve taken the stance that what you say is right and anyone who disagrees is wrong.
I don’t think he was speaking directly about what you said, but how you framed your initial statement.[/quote]

I understood what he said. However, I’ve not seen any logical reasons why my assumptions are wrong. For example, when you give people money to stay home how does that encourage them to go to work for that same amount of money?

Logically I am correct. There is no disputing it. And if there is a counter argument I have not yet heard it from him or anyone else.

32

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

But there are instruments that are completely wrong to achieve a certain goal.

…

So, while you cannot really judge goals as being right or wrong, you certainly can say that a specific policy will not achieve its alleged purpose.
[/quote]

I think we agree.

And to continue, I think bills & opinions are often given and reported without any attempt of trying to find out the goals of the legislation or individual.[/quote]

Very well said. That is called “politics”. And politics does not work very well when it comes to actually solving problems. Why? Because that is not their goal just as you say.

33

One example of emotional appeals used would be the word “Compassion”. Tell me how does compassion enter into a logical argument relative to what actually works and what doesn’t? But one party or the other will mention words like “compassion” as it will help teh candidate get elected. And then acting on such promises of compassion the logical end, the part that would have solved the problem, is then diluted, or completely thrown aside.

We’ve bred entire generations of people totally dependent on the government in one form or another because of this type of politics. That is politics lacking logical solutions.

34

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I think what PTD was pointing out is that when you start an argument/debate on the grounds that you are correct, then it is immediately biased, b/c you’ve taken the stance that what you say is right and anyone who disagrees is wrong.
I don’t think he was speaking directly about what you said, but how you framed your initial statement.[/quote]

I understood what he said. However, I’ve not seen any logical reasons why my assumptions are wrong. For example, when you give people money to stay home how does that encourage them to go to work for that same amount of money?

Logically I am correct. There is no disputing it. And if there is a counter argument I have not yet heard it from him or anyone else.[/quote]

Are you speaking of someone on welfare, or someone who’s been laid off or another, or are they all the same regardless of circumstance?

35

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
Just to expand on my thoughts: this thread is the CORE of the “vitriol” issue.

You’ve set forth a set of OPINIONS stated as questions (look at some of your adjective choices) and said that they (your opinions) are LOGICAL, therefore to disagree, you must be ILLOGICAL.

That being the core of the “vitriol” problem.

In policy decisions there never is a “right” answer, and I feel the problem of “othering” (the technical rhetorical debate term for what your doing) is exacerbated in countries with 2-party systems, the most prominent being, of course, America.
[/quote]

except your logical choice takes away from people.

you take away their right to guns,

you take away their property, income.

you take away their individual liberties.

the side zeb provides as logical simply does not allow others to take what is not theirs.

36

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
Just to expand on my thoughts: this thread is the CORE of the “vitriol” issue.

You’ve set forth a set of OPINIONS stated as questions (look at some of your adjective choices) and said that they (your opinions) are LOGICAL, therefore to disagree, you must be ILLOGICAL.

That being the core of the “vitriol” problem.

In policy decisions there never is a “right” answer, and I feel the problem of “othering” (the technical rhetorical debate term for what your doing) is exacerbated in countries with 2-party systems, the most prominent being, of course, America.
[/quote]

except your logical choice takes away from people.

you take away their right to guns,

you take away their property, income.

you take away their individual liberties.

the side zeb provides as logical simply does not allow others to take what is not theirs.

37

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

Who doesn’t present their opinion as logical fact ? [/quote]

Someone who knows the difference between opinion and fact.

“My idea is better” & “my idea is the only right answer” are two very different concepts. This is the point. People who cannot understand the difference are doomed to ignorance.

The opening post of this thread presented a series of opinions as irrefutable fact and even argued that any opinion differing from them would be fundamentally illogical. PTD posted a very good response, and I should have just left it at that…

Zeb is right. I should know not to engage him at all. It can only end with him tossing around personal insults at people… and I’m too game not to fall into the mud-slinging.

38

to ZEB.

Lets pretend we buy your idea that the welfare state and a progressive tax system is not logical and harmful for the society.
Whats your solution, and try to bring in some empiric data to make your case stronger. That would make this discussion much more interesting.

( this is not a joke or sarcasm btw )

39

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

The opening post of this thread presented a series of opinions as irrefutable fact and even argued that any opinion differing from them would be fundamentally illogical. PTD posted a very good response, and I should have just left it at that…[/quote]

I gave a retort to his response. Furthermore, he just like you, have not yet explained why my logical path to success in the US is in fact illogical. You’ve merely attacked my presentation.

YOU were the first to toss a personal insult at me. I didn’t even address your points as I try as hard as I can to ignore most of your posts. But even then you always seem to come after me with the ad hominem attacks. Are you that short in the grey matter department that you cannot remember that YOU are ALWAYS the one who comes after me FIRST? You cannot enter a thread and simply address the posts in a logical way. When you see my name you seem to zero in and begin your nonsense. And when you get it back ten fold you cry like a little school girl who had her lunch stolen.

Grow up and stop thinking your so much better than the rest of the posters. Try as hard as you can to reverse that inferiority complex of yours. And for heaven sakes even a simpleton would have realized by now that if you don’t want to be attacked best not to be the first to toss out the personal insults.

40

[quote]florelius wrote:
to ZEB.

Lets pretend we buy your idea that the welfare state and a progressive tax system is not logical and harmful for the society.
Whats your solution, and try to bring in some empiric data to make your case stronger. That would make this discussion much more interesting.

( this is not a joke or sarcasm btw )
[/quote]

I am merely stating that what we are doing makes no logical sense and never has. Do you agree with that premise? If not then show me where it is wrong.

If we ran government carried over to other areas:

Business, the more widgets that you sell the less money you will make. We take your commission checks and give some of it to those who are unable to do their job as well.

Sports, for every 5 touch downs that you score one gets credited to one of the lesser players. Because you have more skill and ability we must penalize you so that it can be more fair to the other players.

This all looks pretty silly doesn’t it? But we, as a nation, are so brainwashed that we accept this sort of nonsense from our government.

Now all of you who think that I’m wrong can explain WHY -Skip the personal attacks and go right to the part where you explain WHY handing money to those who do not work for it is a good thing.